douglesso - "The approach flown was a CAT I ILS. I could see the rain column approach from the other side of the field so I got out my phone camera from the jump seat. You can hear the GPWS announce minimums at 200' AGL, and shortly after all visibility is lost due to rain. You do not hear the "50" foot call out during the touch and go, but it had to be close. The HUD really provides incredible center-line tracking, although you can't see the symbology from the camera… (www.youtube.com) עוד...

Actually it took quite a while for the go-around call after they lost vis. In other words, they kept descending for a few moments. Totally unprofessional. Also there was no "Landing" call at minimums. It was very poorly done.

Actually, I'll jump in and help the boy. That rain was seen a lot further out than minimum. I wasn't there but the video took us all there. I would have called the go around while I had some visibilty, rather than wait to get in it and have no visual reference at all.

There is one other thing though. This was a BBJ, a 135? or private operation. We don't know belonging to who, and we don't know what kind of pressure, if any, that pilot's were under. In most cases, that won't be a factor but you never know.

Once again, a little late for the fisticuffs on this one, but gotta side with dodger4 & Preacher on this one. An EJM captain (just guessin) has more qualifications than , oh lets say 90% of the commentators on this forum, and is also flying a state of the art airplane, with state of the art radar. This includes lightening, turbulence and rain. If he had seen the first two on the radar he probably would not have initiated the approach. He would also not be convicted of being the first to try to beat the weather to the airport. In defense of Dodger4, once you lose sight of the runway, at or near minimums, it is go around time, per the regs. and per do I want to go to my daughters birthday party. He knew what the miss was gonna be, he just didn't wanna do it.

Right or wrong - I still stick with - they walked away. Both skill and luck always come into play. Maybe this time there was more luck than skill. Don't know - wasn't there. (Even had I been I wouldn't have known.) But I imagine there are a lot of folks who like the outcome.

Donna, they walked away applies to more than one moron who lived to crash another day! I did not attach that to this crew. I have no desire to fly with a guy who would rather be lucky than good. Procedures are just that, and training is to reinforce procedures. Can't see the runway at minimums, go around, no questions, no debate. Thats the rule. Have I ever landed an airplane after shooting an approach to below mins. Yes. Do I do it on a regular basis. No. The sim is one thing, real airplanes are another. When approach is calling the RVR 6000' and nobody at CVG is missing, I won't either. And so it goes.

Well, you basically were there if you watched the video. He did eventually make it down and came thru the whole deal OK. He went around anyway. All anyone is saying here is that you could see that cloud coming before it ever enveloped the whole field and that he should have initiated the go round quicker while he still had some kind of visual reference and was a tad ahead of that rainstorm. Yeah, he made it thru OK but put himself, the crew, and all pax on that plane thru some unnecessary stuff.IMHO

could have easily been one of those situations where they were just trying to beat the storm....long day....alternate being over 50-100 miles away and the passengers really needed to get to their meeting....their return from the storm on their storm scope showing a cell that was moving slow and was huge which would have meant about 30 mins in a holding pattern .......many variables

After reading everything, that's what I would've done too. As far as the "pressure" in your comment below, I don't give in to that, the passengers could go to hell. I have to get home alive, 2 hungry dogs and a son that flies my savings away...Sometimes you gotta look at the big picture and not go to the MAP!!!

I can agree with you on the pressure as that's the way I feel to. I been on the ground at DFW here for most of an hour. pax loading now and back to FSM. We took off in rain this morning but I just went West and turned left; came in on the tail end of it down here. no biggie.gotta go.ttyl

AAaviator, you might want to review your procedures manual, especially the part about what to do when you lose the runway at or below minimums. I think it says go around, and I can't find douche in the FAR's part 1 so I guess it doesn't apply.

Did you know that your opinion may differ from someone else's, and that you can still state your point of view without being rude or talking down to others? Give 'er a go sometime, you'll be amazed at how accepting people can be when you treat them with respect.

It's you who isn't getting it Mr. Rudd. You don't appear to understand how to follow a thread. My response sits directly below Mr. Wiley's, which sits directly below yours, indicating we are both referencing yours. I'm going out on a limb here and saying I can't imagine ever agreeing with you.

O.K. For all the been there done thats, runway disappears at between 32 & 33 seconds on the video, and go around is called at 38. I call that reaction time, and tempered with a little reality of surprise. You could probably do better the 2nd or 3rd time in the sim. Just sayin.

Uh, I find it interesting that this post (8 hours old at this time) has -9 score when it is a duplicate of :http://flightaware.com/squawks/view/1/7_days/new/34770/BBJ_goes_around_after_minimums posted 72 hours ago with a +81 score. Perhaps downgraded for being duplicate, weekend effect or just internet fickleness?

Having been around this forum for a while, the transition from mostly GA pilot, mech. guys and gals to the air carrier, non pilot wheelhouse has not gone unnoticed. Gotta go with the flow. And I still think they send the food editor out to cover the "breaking news" at the airport. As for Preacher, I think he calls em like he sees em, and he am what he am. PC ain't his cup of tea. And calling a BBJ a business jet is kinda like calling a Ferrari a sedan.Cheers.

How big of a problem is heavy rain for the engines? How bad does it have to be for a flame-out to occur? I assume the water is vaporized in the compressor, but as some point the A/F mixture is going to get pretty messed up.

The word is ingest, as in to consume. In jest is two words, with jest meaning as a joke or funny. Unfortunately this happens alot on the internet, twitter is lousy with it. The one that irks me the most is when people say "for all intensive perposes." or when the split one word into more for no real reason, like in jest.

I felt like I was correcting someone who mispelled a word and changed it's meaning entirely. I taught him a word he didn't know, you are scolding someone for not hitting the space bar on a word that anyone would still understand.

And "it's" should have be "its" - it's is ONLY a contraction for it is and not a possessive. But at the end of the day who really cares. This isn't an English class, and if people understand what you meant to say, what does it really matter? This is so sophomoric not to mention off topic.

Dude, before I commented you didn't even know what a jester was. if you really need to insult someone for writing alot, well then go for it, it's the only way you'll be able to feel superior to someone who can actually write.

Thunder, the grownups are speaking, go and play outside for a while. Before you go though, of course I know alot is not a word, I too had english in school. I don't care that alot isn't a word, we're on the internet, not writing books. If it's something serious, I'll write a lot. Why are you even argueing this? I corrected you on a word, I was informing you of the actual word, stop being a jerk.

I'm not ignoring my own, I'm calling you and Chris out on being nitpicky jerks. I own up to my mistakes, alot IS a mistake,I know that, I just don't care. What I find interesting is that you jumped on the bandwagon of insulting me, while ignoring your own mistake at the same time.

TACA airlines pilots dead-sticked a 737 on a levy in New Orleans because rain flamed out both engines. The water testing is done at cruise power. When descending, the auto-throttles will retard and leave you with low engine speed. Combine that with a onslaught of water and you can very well "flood" the engine. The bypass is not enough.

Most people aren't seeing that Phil. They continued when they had a visual on the weather.Your point is exactly what I was thinking, where do you go on the missed??? Right into what you're going missed for. I second that they didn't have a plan B!!!

As soon as the runway disappeared there should have been a go around initiated without delay instead the descent continued but it was a Business Jet as opposed to a heavy from which I draw experience. Rain shaft downpours like the one experienced are known to contain windshear microbursts (a column of rapidly descending air) which can cause unexpected settling not to mention the intense rain itself suddenly impacting the airfoil leading edge. Though it was a judgement call, personally I would not have continued the approach. I can only assume there was no convective activity in the area associated with this rain squall, that it was just rain, otherwise not good judgement to continue and chance it. Onboard radar and pireps presumably confirmed that.

Remember that we are viewing this on our computers from a small handheld camera in the jumpseat at least 2 feet behind the pilots point of view. My bet is their visibility was at least a little better even when the plane hit that wall of rain.

There is always going to be someone on the internet that will second guess every video and say they would've or could've done it better.

Gee, what a profound revelation, that not everyone is a cheerleader of a crew's performance in a free discussion forum. Betting that their visibility was at least a little better when the plane hit that wall of rain as a defense because that "small handheld camera" viewing from a jumpseat with its images viewed on our computers probably exaggerates and lies, ok, fine, but that too is a judgement call which was my point. Would've or could've done it differently does not necessarily equate to better, just different.

A incredibly heavy rainfall burst forces the pilot of this passenger jet plane to abandon the landing at the very last second when he completely loses visibility. Thankfully the pilot was skilled enough to pull up safely and circle around until the storm cleared enough for him to land safely.